Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the consequences those hints do not: cancellation is irreversible and the schedule must be recreated via livereacting_schedule_stream. It also scopes the operation to SCHEDULED streams only, which is the key behavioral boundary an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the two modes, then consequences, then the two sibling routings. Every sentence carries a distinct fact; nothing is repeated from the title or schema verbatim.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers what it does, what it will not touch, irreversibility, recovery, and preconditions. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents each parameter's effect and the 'required unless liveId is given' constraint, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the branching logic in prose (one id vs every schedule on a project) and points to livereacting_get_project as the id source, though it does not state what happens if neither parameter is supplied despite required=0.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (cancel scheduled streams) and immediately disambiguates its two operating modes by parameter: liveId cancels one, projectId cancels all. It also names the sibling it is not (livereacting_stop_stream) and the sibling it complements (livereacting_schedule_stream), so an agent can place it among the 29 tools without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: running streams are out of scope and routed to livereacting_stop_stream, and the agent is told to call this before livereacting_schedule_stream when schedules already exist because scheduling refuses to coexist. Both alternatives and the precondition are named rather than implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.